April 11

We had heavy rain overnight and it is raining lightly right now. We are still getting used to the new computers which is a frustrating process. I can get on my Blogger page from this, my old, computer but haven't been able to do so on the new one. At some point over the time since I signed up for Blogger it was taken over by Google. I haven't signed on to Google for even longer and no longer remember either ID or password so I haven't been able to use the new machine. I did ask for a code to by-pass that but I didn't find it on my e-mail until very late yesterday evening. I checked out Wordpress but they only offer paid services. I will let that ferment in my mind for a while.

In the mean time here are a few thoughts from yesterday's readings I simply jotted down.

First--George Dillard on Medium asked "Why Malthus was wrong" and answered lacxter that Malthus wasn't really wrong. Humans have simply applied technology to the problem and moved the goal posts. The basic premise is still right: any species, humans included, increase their numbers until they break through the carrying capacity of the environment (that is, eat them selves out of hearth and home). Then the population crashes as individuals starve Our technology doesn't change that dynamic--it simply provides the food resources to, as I said, move the goal posts. I don't know if many remember the hopeful and exuberant celebrations over the Green Revolution in the late 1970s and 1980s. Eastern Africa experienced a devastating famine and the proponents advised the adoption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides along with the development of high yield grains to end famine forever. Well, East Africa is again experiencing famine due to a combination of conflict and drought which technology can't do much about. Malthus couldn't predict the technological advances but today's pundits haven't recognized the limits of technology. First, we need fossil fuels to produce fertilizers (because stocks of natural fertilizers are scarce now especially for industrial farming) and the costs of fossil fuels are going up making anything made from them. Second, the high yield seeds work well in the test fields but under other conditions (scarce water, poor farmers who can't afford chemicals, heat) they often don't produce well. And the pests the chemical (a.k.a., fossil fuel derived) pesticides were developed to combat are quickly becoming resistant. Third, more areas (urban and rural) are suffering water scarcity. All of those factors as well as social and political conditions will limit food production and distribution. And we are back to Malthus.

MSNBC, over the last couple of days, featured a focus group of undecided voters discussing Biden and Trump. It was a case of nobody "liked anybody much." I was struck by the difference between the criticism of the two presumptive candidates. The criticism of Trump centered on his behavior while that directed at Biden centered on policies. Most wished Trump would shut up and behave in a more dignified fashion while saying they agreed with his "policies." I put the word in quotes because I doubt he ever has explicit policies. He was always testing which way sentiment was going and then getting on the train. And he never had the attention span to stick with any position or policy consistently for any length of time. Most criticized Biden on promises "not" kept (student loan relief) or on economic condition that are stymying their lives (interest rates, rising cost of groceries, cars and housing). I put that word in quotes because Biden did propose student loan relief which did make things easier for some borrowers but it was shot down by the Supreme Court. Not his fault. He is trying again so we'll see what happens. Interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve over which he has no real power. And no one, including politicians, wants to even consider that the economy is really beyond their control.

Learned a new word yesterday: hiraeth. It is Welsh and describes a kind of homesickness for a departed place or condition; a grief or yearning for a home or culture you might never experience again. I think it describes a pervasive condition in today's society. Consider Mark Robinson who is a Republican candidate for North Carolina's governor who would like to go back to a time when women couldn't vote because "they got things done." He is black but he didn't suggest going back to 1865. We have a lot of people who are yearning for an American Eden which never existed except in their imaginations. I found another term that is more apt: "anemoia," which is the yearning for a place or time you could not have experienced.